Thursday, June 14, 2012

The 10,000 Mile Diet

This article, Shop locally, eat globally? , appeared in today's edition of our university bulletin. I thought it was worth posting a link because, unfortunately, many of my relatives, friends, and colleagues think you can support a large city by only eating food grown within one hundred miles (161 kilometers).

Pierre Desrochers knows how to serve up controversy. When an acquaintance mentions she follows a 100-mile diet to help the environment, Desrochers calmly asks how much energy it takes to heat an Ontario greenhouse.

When a colleague lauds local food as more nutritious than products shipped thousands of miles, Desrochers politely points out that the diet of a 19th-century German peasant consisted of lentils and peas.

Now, the University of Toronto Mississauga geography professor has published a controversial new book that goes beyond polite mealtime conversation and pits what Desrochers calls the “romanticism” of local eating, or locavorism, against the realities of a global food-supply chain.

Desrochers is the co-author of The Locavore’s Dilemma: In Praise of the 10,000-mile Diet, in which he argues that we should stop obsessing about how many miles our food has travelled to get to our dinner plate.

“Three centuries ago most people were eating local food,” Desrochers says. “Why do we think the world moved away from that? There are significant benefits—particularly, environmental and economical—in collaborating to produce food in the best geographic locations.”

7 comments
:

Nothing new here; a far back as the early 2000's there were papers addressing the environmental impact of moving food en-bulk thousands of km by mass-transport (which, per tonne moved, is very energy efficient), compared to moving the same amount of food "locally" using conventional transport (medium/large trucks). Even then, it was clear that for most foods, it was "greener" to produce remotely and transport en bulk than to produce/transport locally.

The trendies/greenies didn't accept it then. I doubt they'll accept it now.

“Three centuries ago most people were eating local food,” Desrochers says. “Why do we think the world moved away from that? There are significant benefits—particularly, environmental and economical—in collaborating to produce food in the best geographic locations.”

I admit that I don't know, but I'd bet that the financial gain of the merchants is enough to make it happen.

This is one of those arguments which is only true for a given value of "true".

The "10,000 Mile Diet" is not sustainable. People like this idiot Desrochers say "but locally-grown food is unappetizing, and moving food around is good for the economy", as though that's relevant. Unsustainable means it's going to end sooner or later. You can whine all you like about profits, or lentils, or what-have-you, but as far as anyone has been able to prove, we're up against physics.

"But" you cry -- in this very post, in fact -- "big cities can't feed themselves sustainably on only locally-grown foods!" This is, in fact, only true for some big cities. Ontario, possibly -- although it's interesting that the people making these arguments are careful to never actually allow for the things that locavores and ecologists actually suggest, such as deliberately reducing density or eliminating lawns in favor of gardens, on the grounds that this is "impossible" -- as though economics is going to trump physics when the fossil fuels run out. Even as far north as Chicago, though, relatively minor changes would allow a quite large number of people to mostly feed themselves for most of the year if they really had to, and unless there's entirely unprecedented and unlooked-for technology waiting in the wings they're going to have to within a couple of centuries. It will require changes in how the city is organized, but not an end to the city.

Look, we know for a fact that humanity is going to have to make radical changes in the way we organize ourselves and live our lives. Even if we don't cut back on fossil fuels and keep pushing towards the stuff recently pointed out in Nature, things are going to have to change out of necessity. People like Desrochers simply can't conceive of the broad-scale societal changes which reality is going to impose on us, and so they wave their hands and tell us that the unsustainable will keep going forever, even though this is a contradiction in terms.

Good points, and this also cuts to the heart of the AGW 'debate'. Libertarians and others can deny AGW till the cows come home, and squash any and all 'tree-hugger' measures just because of the source of the sentiment. They could even be right - maybe the climate won't change. Or maybe fossil fuels will run out before there is a significant impact on climate. A nice self-limiting cap on AGW, let's all breathe a sigh of relief that we averted that disaster ... now, about getting food to the people ...

Of course, all we can do is defer. But opposing emission-limiting measures on the grounds that the AGW science might be wrong misses the point. Governments can't say it directly, but we are running out, and measures to slow down our consumption should be a prime focus irrespective of AGW - different question, same answer. "The economy", you say? Try running an economy when you can't move stuff.

The "10,000 Mile Diet" is not sustainableActually, studies suggest that the 10,000 mile diet (note: in N. America is more a 5000km diet) it is more sustainable than a local one, a few examples:http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=15001

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es702969f

Reality is that transportation only accounts for about 4% the emissions released in the "life cycle" of a food item. Local factors influence a foods CO2 footprint much more than transport - i.e. hothouse Ontario tomatoes release ~4X the CO2 of tomatoes grown in mexico and shipped by train. Even when looking at just transport, it is far more efficient to ship food long distances by mass transport than short distance by trucks.

such as deliberately reducing density or eliminating lawns in favor of gardensMy wife and I have an enormous garden, dedicating a significant portion of our 1/4 acre lot to vegetable production (the portion of our yard under cultivation is larger than the average yard you'd find in a city like Toronto or Calgary). Even with that, we are unable to produce enough vegetables for us for a year - so it is, indeed, impossible for the average home owner to feed themselves - at least, its not possible in southern Ontario. Having grown up in Calgary (and worked on farms in the area), I know first hand that yields are even lower there.

Moreover, there is an environmental cost even here - the cost of storage. Refrigeration or freezing (or canning - we do it all) consume energy. Given the high efficiency of mass transport, versus the low efficiency of domestic appliances, I have my doubts that you end up ahead.

I'm don't understand why you would suggest that reducing density is a good thing. It would inevitably entail using up good arable land for habitation. Furthermore, how does low-density help preserve areas for wildlife? The sprawl we see in our urban areas produces huge carbon emissions and is completely unsustainable.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.